Dissolve the United Nations

The civilized world would be better off were the United Nations in its present form to disappear.

The civilized world would be better off were the United Nations in its present form to disappear. Such views are being increasingly expressed by many people, including sober analysts of the international scene.

As a sentimental youngster, I was in awe of the UN. It represented the best hope for mankind - a global forum created by the Allies after the defeat of Nazism to ensure that the world would never again be threatened by genocidal barbarians. The UN would create an environment in which morality and the rule of law would prevail on the international scene.

I recollect proudly hailing the international body which endorsed the creation of a Jewish state on November 29 1947, when the United States and the fiercely anti-Zionist Soviet Union miraculously voted in unison in support the birth of Israel.

Alas, the dreams and hopes of those early days were soon dashed. Despite its noble charter upholding human rights, the UN has never lived up to its ideals.

The UN has failed abjectly in forestalling terrible tragedies in which millions of people died.

It did provide a gladiatorial arena in which the Western nations and the Soviets could duel with words rather than nuclear weapons. But since the demise of the Soviet Union, the UN has effectively followed the same path as its lapsed predecessor, the League of Nations, displaying impotence in virtually every activity relating to collective security, and thus failing abjectly to forestall terrible tragedies in which millions of people died.

Take the case of Rwanda, which in 1994 underwent the worst genocide since the Nazis. At the time the UN had a sizable presence in that country, but when a debate over the issue at the Security Council bogged down, Kofi Annan recalled the UN peacekeeping forces and in less than 100 days over a million Tutsis were brutally massacred.

Subsequently, the Security Council approved a French-led military intervention, which paradoxically provided a safe haven for the Hutu killers.

The following year, in July 1995, in Srebrenica, Bosnia, a UN battalion in a UN-declared "free zone" handed over 8,000 Moslem civilians to the Serbs, who promptly slaughtered them all.

The UN did not convene an enquiry to review that terrible atrocity. Instead, Annan, who was later to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, made do with sanctimonious statements.

Ultimately the Yugoslav imbroglio, in which a quarter of a million people were killed, was resolved only after the Americans bypassed the Security Council and intervened directly.

The most damning UN hypocrisy has been the outrageous double standard employed against Israel. Here the humbug is nakedly exposed: Even with Iraq on the agenda, the UN continued to spend more time condemning Israel than on any other single issue.

I recollect asking Annan three years ago at a public meeting in Jerusalem whether he appreciated the deep misgivings most Jews shared in relation to the UN because of its bias against Israel. Annan conceded that if he were Jewish he would also feel uncomfortable with the UN track record, and undertook to ensure that the double standard directed against Israel never recurred.

Under Annan's regime, the UN has dramatically intensified its bias and venom against Israel.

Needless to say, Annan broke his undertaking. Indeed, under his regime the UN has dramatically intensified its bias and venom against Israel, as exemplified by the blurring of distinctions between Israeli acts of self-defense and the atrocities of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Blatant bias was displayed in October 2000 by the disgraceful refusal of the UN to provide Israelis with copies of videos taken when Hizbullah terrorists intruded into Israeli territory and kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

Of course this was consistent with the unwillingness of UNIFIL to resist terrorist incursions into Israeli territory even after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon.

The ultimate abomination was undoubtedly the UN-hosted conference in Durban in September 2001, which degenerated into a pit of racism reminiscent of a Nuremberg Nazi rally. That UN-sponsored event will be recorded in history as the launching pad for the new global wave of so-called anti-Zionist anti-Semitism.

Over the past year the hypocrisy and double standards of the UN have reached their nadir. Syria, a haven for terrorist groups whose UN representative still insists that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake unleavened bread, was elected to the presidency of the Security Council.

A few months later the hypocrisy was magnified when that virtuous standard bearer for human rights, Libya, was elected to chair the UN Human Rights Commission. If that was not sufficiently bizarre, Iraq was subsequently appointed to chair the UN Commission on Disarmament, a role the Iraqis themselves declined because it would have provided the international media with a festival not to their benefit.

The reality is that the UN, the body created to promote human rights, has always closed its eyes to the highly visible atrocities committed by its members, even against their own citizens.

To name a few current examples: The Russian response to the Chechnya insurrection and terrorism when the capital city of Grozny was razed to the ground, leaving behind some 700,000 corpses; the Chinese suppression of Tibetan independence; the slavery and killing of over a million Christians and animists by the Islamic government in Sudan; the terrible crimes committed by Saddam Hussein against his own people, and the massacre of over 250,000 Algerians in a bitter civil war, not to mention all the other tyrannical regimes who deny their subjects the most elementary human rights.

The European democracies, except when directly involved, have always tended to bury their heads in the sand and abstain on issues where they should have displayed moral leadership. In most conflicts, rather than identifying the aggressors they endorsed moral equivalence by repeating mindless cliches about cycles of violence.

In this maelstrom of amorality Annan presents himself as the spokesman for collective security and peace. Yet despite occasional selective endorsement of non-UN-sanctioned forcible removal of tyrants, he had the gall to declare as illegitimate the US-led war against Saddam Hussein the man who killed over a million of his own citizens and whose access to nuclear and chemical weapons threatens mankind.

To those with a sense of history, the exploitation of the Security Council as a vehicle to undermine US efforts to neutralize Saddam Hussein inevitably calls to mind the League of Nations. History will record that the same countries whose policies of appeasement paved the way for Hitler in the 1930s are the ones who, without taking account of the moral issues involved, encouraged the Iraqis to believe that the Americans would be stymied, and, by so doing, made war inevitable.

The breakdown in the Security Council created the grotesque situation in which the president of the US and his secretary of state were obliged to canvass, curry favor and even bribe tin-pot states like Guinea and Cameroon.

Clearly an organization purporting to provide global collective security becomes compromised if, in order to proceed, its leading members are obliged to exploit cynicism, corruption and hypocrisy.

It was therefore painful in recent days to hear British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his foreign minister once more trotting out all the worn cliches about the importance of the UN and its vital role in maintaining collective security.

President Bush had previously explicitly warned that failure to enforce its resolutions on Iraq would make the UN irrelevant. So it was particularly regrettable that in his address on the eve of the war, in deference to the political needs of his loyal British ally, Bush referred to a possible future role for the UN, thus implying that it could be re-empowered.

No organization dominated by dictatorships and tyrannies can ever be a force for good.

Surely the time has come to face reality and bite the bullet by stating explicitly that despite the noble hopes and aspirations of those who created the UN in 1945, the organization has proven a dismal failure and its days are over. It should also be unequivocally proclaimed that no organization dominated by dictatorships and tyrannies can ever be a force for good.

Therefore as the sole superpower and leading democracy in the world, the US should now consider creating a new multilateral association of states limited to countries that are broadly democratic and display respect for human rights. Such a body could also provide genuine collective responsibility and serve as a vehicle to promote democracy throughout the world.

Autocratic regimes would be pressured to reform in order to qualify for inclusion whilst outright dictatorships and repressive regimes would be isolated.

When the Europeans recover from their lapse into irresponsibility and realize the folly of appeasing rather than facing up to the enemies of civilized mankind, they will hopefully also recognize the benefits of participating in such a voluntary association of democratic nations.

It would make far greater sense than providing artificial life support for a dysfunctional body that enables tyrannies and rogue states to influence collective policies impacting on the life or death of millions of people.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 22

(21)
James Hay,
August 14, 2012 3:54 PM

Erradicate The U.N

I Have Long Advocated The Erradication Of The United Nations Because Of The Fact That It Has Strayed From It's Orginal Mission And Very Purpose For Existing In Particular It's Transparent Anti Semetism And Prejudice Against Israel And Israelis. I Agree Fully That An World Without The U.N Would Be Increasingly Better Off. Mr Bush Was Absolutely Correct In His Statement Regarding The U.N And It Evolving Into An Haven For Terrorists And Tyrrants And Should Cease To Exist(Wiped Off The Face Of The Earth) Sort To Speak.

(20)
Bob,
December 7, 2011 7:00 PM

UN should be abolished

I totally agree that UN is useles and toothless. I has become a tool of the super power to do what they are please to do anywhere. UN officials cant be hold accountable for their iresponsibility, why? cases haven been given and there are endless examples. Of what importance is this UN to us or the suffering people?
UN should go, we can do better without it.

(19)
ernest berlin,
November 16, 2007 6:16 PM

bravo

As a retired veteran (21 years Navy)and long time college student (7 years and several degrees later) I can only agree wholeheartedly and say BRAVO! The Useless Natios(as I call it) is a waste of time and money and has caused the deaths of more people than probably Hitler and Stalin combined. I say boot all of them out and turn the building into a conference center and hotel, and start from scratch.

(18)
Adam,
December 15, 2003 12:00 AM

THE UN IS OF NO UES!

I am a member of the American Military and I find the U.N. to be pointless and even wores in it's own right a body of men that allow evil to go unpunished while they get fat off the money they make. They are wasting the time of the American people and the time of the people of Israel.The U.N. makes me sick with all it lies. It is a spawning spot for evil.I love America and Isrel and I know that our paths are with one another. To beat back the evilness of men and to proclaim the love of the ONE almighty G-D of all things.I agree with all that was said in the abve. let us do away with the U.N. and all it's evilness!!! May he send is blessings upon both Nations!

SRA.WORLEY,USAF

(17)
Yekhil Brodsky,
September 9, 2003 12:00 AM

UN dissolution is long overdue.

What else can you expect from organization where terrorists and dictators play their music and the rest are dancing to it? Stop this music,
pack-up, go home.

(16)
Gary Selikow,
April 6, 2003 12:00 AM

UN=Third Reich

The United Nations is the very embidement of a dark Orwellianism, where aggressors are defenders and

defenders are aggressors, where justice is injustice and injustice is

justice, where war is peace and peace is war, where freedom fighters are

terrorists and terrorists are freedom fighters, It is by its very nature cruel to the kind and kind to the cruel.

Where freedom is tyranny and tyranny is freedom

While the UN silently condones ALL real human rights and genoicide in the world such as the occupation of Tibet by China , the deliberate starvation of Zimbabwe's people and massacres perpetrated by dictaor , Robert Muagbe Mugabe , genopicide of the Kurds , South Sudanese , Christian Lebanese etc , and the nightmarish totalitarian dictaorships in China , North Korea,Vietnam , Cuba , Zimababwe , Syria , Libya, Iran etc

it vociferously bays for the blood of tiny democratic Israel and condemmns the USA for any action against totalitarian regimes.

Only the terrorist 'Palestinians' seem to have rights where the UN and their ilk are concerned.

The UN can always be counted on to side with the cruel ones , with the despots.

(15)
Anonymous,
April 4, 2003 12:00 AM

And, pray, what would Mr Leibler replace it with?

The UN is the only forum where issues of global importance can be discussed. To dismiss the herculean humanitarian and educational work the UN is and has been doing under the most difficult circumstances is to negate the positive forces that still operate in this world.

Sure, the UN is flawed, but it can only be as good as its members allow it to be, including the US, Australia, Israel and any other country Mr. Leibler would trust to set up a counter global organisation.

Anonymous,
July 25, 2013 3:36 PM

Pray Tell...

Pray tell, what exactly are those "heruclian humanitarian" accomplishments? For any ten - if there are ten - are hundreds examples of hypocrisy, do-nothingism in response to killing fields, antisemitism, posturing, lying.... All of it is at the expense of the American People who host the UN, beacon of uselessness,. Send all the UN dolts to their respective countries where they may or may not be able to get real jobs.
And before they go, let them pay up on their outstanding parking tickets, which amounted to 17.2 million - in 2011.

(14)
Fred Steiner,
April 4, 2003 12:00 AM

An advise long overdue.

As it is now, the UN causes more strife in the world, than solving, The Blocks such as Europe or Asia can gang up to small Nations. I may be biased but Israel is the best example, that out of 199 member states Israel is the only country which can not serve on the security council, or any other UN commitee.

(13)
Beverly Kurtin,
April 4, 2003 12:00 AM

Duh!

Oh, thank you, Mr. Liebler. You echoed my thoughs completely. As Jews, we say, "Never Again." But how many Holocausts have happened under the blinded eyes of the UN?

The world needs to repent of its willing blidness anytime any group of people are slaughtered, yet, I know that ice skating will be a featured recreation in the theological place of eternal punishment before the world will bother to admit that it doesn't mind any group killing another group as long as the people don't look like them.

We JUMPED into the fray when white people were killing other white people, but where was the world when Cambodians and Africans were killing each other?

Shame on the UN. May it be dismantled in the shortest time possible.

(12)
ana,
April 3, 2003 12:00 AM

I strongly disagree

The problem is that too many nations are not agreeing with the USA. USA has lost in two weeks the moral leadership in the world. If the UN was a democracy the majority's claim would have to be followed. But if the majority is not what USA wants, then off with democracy. I feel very sad about it. France and Germany have proved to be more civilizades. Germany has proved to learn from her crimes and not repeat them The only way to be more civilized than the cannibals is not eat your enemy.

(11)
Bracha Meyer,
April 1, 2003 12:00 AM

The US has no business being in the UN

What once was a high ideal has degraded into an anti-American, anti-Semitic farce that the US finances to the detriment of the taxpayers. What few good deeds the UN accomplishes could be done with a pitance of the money currently squandered.

Move the UN to an anti-Semitic country like france (small f on purpose) and let them fund the UN boondogglers that muck up the world.

(10)
Patty Ann Smith,
April 1, 2003 12:00 AM

I agree 100% with Isi Liebler, we need a U.N for countries that respect Human Rights. It should be put in Israel because I don't know any other country with more respect for human rights. The proof is in the pudding, Yassar Arafat would not be alivetoday if they weren't the kindest country around!!!. Blessing Israel blesses the world, there will be no world peace or unity until Israel dwells in peace, their peace ensures all the nations of peace !!!.

(9)
Andrew Gelbman,
March 31, 2003 12:00 AM

Get US out of the UN!

The UN has never been anything except an attempt at global statism by socialist tyrants and their friends. Collective security is best achieved by treaty agreements between nations with shared interests.

The United States, for example, has shared interests with the UK, Australia, Israel, Canada, New Zealand, and some of the emerging European democracies. We do NOT have any interest in the security or stability of regimes in China, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or any of the other 150+ dictatorships that dominate the UN.

If the US were to pull out of this criminal body, it is a certainty that several other nations would as well. Without US money and military might to back up Kofi Anan's incoherent blatherings, the organization will quickly collapse.

Unlike the Congress of Europe, the UN has never prevented a war but it has started several. Like the League of Nations (which the US senate wisely rejected), it has only been an enabler of tyrants and despots.

It is time for the US to ignore the increasingly ridiculous ideology of the internationalist left and withdraw support from the UN.

(8)
Dawn Weidman,
March 31, 2003 12:00 AM

I agree

I totally agree that the UN should be dismantled as well. The acts of the UN are disgusting and abominable, especially with their anti-Semitic policies. Especially with the point about not distinguishing between a Palistinian suicide bomber who deliberately blows himself up with the aim of merely taking out as many of our people as possible, and our people trying to defend ourselves. I mean, really. What are we supposed to do, stand around and do nothing?
I think the author makes a very good point. The UN is an incredibly hypocritical organization and should be done away with.

(7)
Donna Costa,
March 31, 2003 12:00 AM

The UN

Dissolve the UN??? YES YES YES YES!!!!
And thank you for explaining it so clearly.

(6)
charlene,
March 31, 2003 12:00 AM

Dissolve UN

Isi Liebler said it all. The UN was created with lofty utopian goals. Today, tyranny/villainy/terrorism is rewarded and promoted within the UN by its majority members. I say boot the UN out of America, withdraw all support whatsoever and let us put our trust in HaShem. Kol hakavod to aish.com staff for taking a bold stance to put before the world what it needs to hear rather than what it wants to hear.

(5)
Stan Sadava,
March 30, 2003 12:00 AM

This case of overreaction is myopic nonsense

It pains me to read this myopic nonsense. Of course I agree with everything that has been argued about the shortcomings of the UN, every word of it. However, the conclusion that the UN must be disbanded and replaced by some kind of "coalition of the willing" does not follow. The UN reflects the world as it exists, with all of its tragedies and all of its hypocrisies. The UN is a forum in which this world can be gathered, sometimes in futility and sometimes for good. Mr. Leibler appears to be reacting to the case of Iraq, but I agree with most of the civilized, democratic world that the failure rests primarily with the determination of the onse superpower to ignore it. May I also suggest that referring to other countries as "tinpot" befits the present government of the USA in its arrogance, but is terribly inappropriate for a VP of the WJC. Sooner rather than later, both the exalted USA and our Israel will need friends, and friendship of any kind demands accomodation, patience and even listening to what the others havae to say.

(4)
George,
March 30, 2003 12:00 AM

The time is now...

I agree that the U.N. should be dismantled completely and a New Honest Organization (as described herein)should be formed. Excellent Article, well written and TRUE.

(3)
Rae,
March 30, 2003 12:00 AM

Excellent Article

For all the reasons stated in the article, I have felt that the UN has become one of the most horrible organizations in human history.

Additionally, such 20th century organizations such as NATO are also outdated and no longer useful.

Let us remember that all of the other European Nations outside of France, Belgian and Germany, support the removal of the Hussein Regime as well as many "Eastern European Countries, such as Poland, who know what it is like to live under tyranny.

(2)
Peter G. Kuntz,
March 30, 2003 12:00 AM

Bravo! Someone with the guts to call a farce a farce.

It appears the Un as body would rather the earth die of "cancers" and is to noble to do the "sugery" needed to keep the patient healthy. Historically it appears doing things by the UN book actually "causes" more death and hardship than letting some police work violence happen.

I've been striving to get more into spirituality. But it seems that every time I make some progress, I find myself slipping right back to where I started. I'm getting discouraged and feel like a failure. Can you help?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Spiritual slumps are a natural part of spiritual growth. There is a cycle that people go through when at times they feel closer to God and at times more distant. In the words of the Kabbalists, it is "two steps forward and one step back." So although you feel you are slipping, know that this is a natural process. The main thing is to look at your overall progress (over months or years) and be able to see how far you've come!

This is actually God's ingenious way of motivating us further. The sages compare this to teaching a baby how to walk. When the parent is holding on, the baby shrieks with delight and is under the illusion that he knows how to walk. Yet suddenly, when the parent lets go, the child panics, wobbles and may even fall.

At such times when we feel spiritually "down," that is often because God is letting go, giving us the great gift of independence. In some ways, these are the times when we can actually grow the most. For if we can move ourselves just a little bit forward, we truly acquire a level of sanctity that is ours forever.

Here is a practical tool to help pull you out of the doldrums. The Sefer HaChinuch speaks about a great principle in spiritual growth: "The external awakens the internal." This means that although we may not experience immediate feelings of closeness to God, eventually, by continuing to conduct ourselves in such a manner, this physical behavior will have an impact on our spiritual selves and will help us succeed. (A similar idea is discussed by psychologists who say: "Smile and you will feel happy.")

That is the power of Torah commandments. Even if we may not feel like giving charity or praying at this particular moment, by having a "mitzvah" obligation to do so, we are in a framework to become inspired. At that point we can infuse that act of charity or prayer with all the meaning and lift it can provide. But if we'd wait until being inspired, we might be waiting a very long time.

May the Almighty bless you with the clarity to see your progress, and may you do so with joy.

In 1940, a boatload 1,600 Jewish immigrants fleeing Hitler's ovens was denied entry into the port of Haifa; the British deported them to the island of Mauritius. At the time, the British had acceded to Arab demands and restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The urgent plight of European Jewry generated an "illegal" immigration movement, but the British were vigilant in denying entry. Some ships, such as the Struma, sunk and their hundreds of passengers killed.

If you seize too much, you are left with nothing. If you take less, you may retain it (Rosh Hashanah 4b).

Sometimes our appetites are insatiable; more accurately, we act as though they were insatiable. The Midrash states that a person may never be satisfied. "If he has one hundred, he wants two hundred. If he gets two hundred, he wants four hundred" (Koheles Rabbah 1:34). How often have we seen people whose insatiable desire for material wealth resulted in their losing everything, much like the gambler whose constant urge to win results in total loss.

People's bodies are finite, and their actual needs are limited. The endless pursuit for more wealth than they can use is nothing more than an elusive belief that they can live forever (Psalms 49:10).

The one part of us which is indeed infinite is our neshamah (soul), which, being of Divine origin, can crave and achieve infinity and eternity, and such craving is characteristic of spiritual growth.

How strange that we tend to give the body much more than it can possibly handle, and the neshamah so much less than it needs!